🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,